Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout00 - Written CommentsRECEIVED AFTER AGENDA PRINTED FEBRUARY 27, 2018 WRITTEN COMMENTS February 27, 2018, Council Consent Calendar Comments The following comments on items on the Newport Beach City Council agenda are submitted by: Jim Mosher ( jimmosher(c)yahoo.com ), 2210 Private Road, Newport Beach 92660 (949-548-6229) Item 1. Minutes for the February 13, 2018 City Council Meeting The passages shown in italics below are from the draft minutes with suggested corrections indicated in s*'��, out underline format. The page numbers refer to Volume 63. Page 441, paragraph 4: "Jim Mosher suggested making better use of the current screen, ..." [note: I failed to mention that, contrary to Council Member Peotter sense of aesthetics, I have never felt the presence of the large screen behind the dais detracted from the appearance of the City Council Chambers. On the contrary, to me it seems symbolic of a maximum wish and commitment to share what is going on with the audience. In my view, a smaller video wall off to the side would diminish that sense of welcoming and transparency, and make it seem more like the public is being allowed to share what the Council members are seeing, but only as a kind of token afterthought, without being engaged as an active or important part of the proceedings.] Page 446, paragraph 2: "Jim Mosher discussed what he believed happened at the Planning Session and expressed concern that bringing forward amended resolutions tonight does not provide public notice about the discussion." [note: As indicated in my comment, I feel the handling of this item was ethically improper. The ratification of goals set at the January 29 Planning Session was presented as a Consent Calendar item, which the agenda itself says "are considered to be routine and will all be enacted by one motion in the form listed below." If the Council wishes to take a radically different direction from what the public reading the agenda in advance of the meeting expects to a routine matter enacted by unanimous assent, especially if it involves adopting a resolution different from what the public had been told it was going to enact, then I feel that revised action should be re -noticed and brought back for consideration at a future meeting. I know many people were disappointed by, and felt deprived of a chance to comment on, the change in direction regarding work on the General Plan.] Page 446, paragraph 6: "Tim Makes Stoaks agreed that Council needs to reestablish trust." Page 447, paragraph 2, last sentence: "He discussed his respect for the citizens who participated in the recall process and reiterated that the City has an obligation to look into entities that attempt to frau el defraud the voters." [note: Regarding Consent Calendar Item 8 from February 13 (issuing subpoenas to investigate "voter fraud" in the recent recall petition drive), I now believe my written comments submitted February 12, focusing exclusively on the transparency of the proposed investigation, were much too weak. I now agree with those who believe this is a total waste of taxpayer money and City staff effort, which can be seen as little more than improper political payback. As best I can tell, the only allegation to have emerged is that a single paid circulator appears to have forged signatures. My understanding is that doing so is a serious criminal act, and the City Council does not seem the proper body to investigate or prosecute criminal matters. And nothing I can imagine the Council could do as a result of its February 27, 2018, Council Consent Calendar Comments - Jim Mosher Page 2 of 3 "investigation" of everyone other than the presumed miscreant would prevent future paid or volunteer circulators from committing criminal acts if they are so inclined.] Page 447, paragraph 2 from end: "Harbor Commission Vice Chair Kenney utilized a PowerPoint presentation to highlight the Commission's goals and objectives." Page 448, Item 16, paragraph 1 of public hearing: "Jim Mosher took issue with flowing the fuel rhn4 operators to choose their rent option ,nbelieved it would make no sense for an operator to choose Option 2 over Option 3." [note: I don't recall taking issue with giving operators a choice. But if the operators were to choose, I did take issue with offering them the nonsensical Option 2, which in every imaginable sales scenario would require an operator making that choice to pay the same or more than Option 3.] Item 3. Electronic and Paperless Filing of Fair Political Practices Commission Campaign Disclosure Statements I commented on this item previously, when it was before the Council on February 13, for its first reading, also as Item 3. It is gratifying that the word "electroncially' has been corrected to "electronically," apparently by City staff. It is disappointing the Council did not deign to consider or discuss any of my other suggestions. In my view, ignoring comments and criticisms is a major part of how bad laws get adopted. Item 4. Resolution No. 2018-10: Adopting an Amended Memorandum of Understanding with the Newport Beach Firefighters Association (NBFA) Although this document has been publicly available for slightly over two weeks, and I appreciate that attempt at openness, I have not found time to review it, and suspect few other members of the public have. Item 5. Adopt Resolution No. 2018-11 Amending the Staffing Structure of (1) Position in the Public Works Department Although I seem to remember one previously, I have not been able to find an organization chart of the Public Works Department on the City website, making it difficult to identify the current state of the "Administration and Finance Division" -- an entity which although listed as one of the "four branches" of the department at the preceding link, has no link to it. It would seem the City could be a bit more transparent about the internal structure of this important department. February 27, 2018, Council Consent Calendar Comments - Jim Mosher Page 3 of 3 Item 9. Professional Services Agreement with Edward J. Johnson for Hearing Adjudication Services I was surprised to read in the staff report that there were 41 non -Title 20 hearings in 2017. How does the public know about these? Were they noticed on the City's on-line calendar? Item 10. Planning Commission Agenda for February 22, 2018 - canceled Since it was posted and noticed, it is unclear why the February 22 Planning Commission agenda is not being provided to the Council, but the absence of a staff report would appear to mean that, for the second time in a month, neither the Council nor the public will be informed of what was canceled, or why. As to the reasons, I cannot speak for Planning Division staff, but I know the only item set for hearing on February 22 was Item 4, an application for a Coastal Development Permit to allow the demolition and replacement of a home on Bay Island. The meeting was canceled mere hours before it was scheduled to begin, possibly because it became apparent that City staff was recommending approval based on compliance with development standards that were not part of the certified Local Coastal Program (the only City document that is supposed to be relied on for approvals of CDPs). This is the third time a CDP application has come before the Planning Commission, and the same problem of justifying approval based on inapplicable provisions of the NB Municipal Code has arisen each time. First, with 2607 Ocean Blvd on December 7, 2017, staff told the Commission variances to the Zoning Code (Title 20 of the NBMC) could be used to ignore the development standards in the LCP (Title 21) — a decision that has been appealed to the California Coastal Commission, and set for a preliminary procedural hearing before them on March 7. Then with the Balboa Theater renovation, pulled from the January 18, 2018 Planning Commission agenda , staff cited a purported exemption in the LCP to the City's longstanding 35' Shoreline Height Limitation when the preamble to that exemption very clearly stated it didn't apply in the area where the Theater is located. Now with the Bay Island matter on February 22, staff asserted special development standards approved in a 1997 City Use Permit for the island could be used to justify approving a CDP even though those special standards were not in, and conflicted with, the Coastal Commission certified LCP. This pattern makes one wonder if the many CDP applications going before the Zoning Administrator (nine on February 27, alone) are being any more accurately analyzed for compliance with the LCP.